list_control_resources

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists resources but doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it), if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the need to distinguish from many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain output format, behavioral constraints, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'control_name' relates to compliance frameworks or what format 'datasource_ids' should follow beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('cloud resources associated with a specific compliance control'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_cloud_resources' or 'list_compliance_controls', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_cloud_resources', 'get_compliance_control') that might overlap in functionality, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.